In the July 5th edition of
the Casa Grande Dispatch there was an opinion piece with the byline
of Star Parker entitled Replacing Traditional Values. She did not
specify who's traditions but from the article I guess we can assume
she meant American traditions, United States specifically. This is an
assumption on my part and I will admit that now, before I continue
with this rebuttal.
Quote: “I see nothing that says it's
the job of judges to explain to the American people why institutions
like marriage, that have defined and long preceded our nation, exist
and what they mean.”
I see nothing that says a judge cannot
explain the reasoning that went into their decision. Just because the
Constitution doesn't say it's their job doesn't mean they can't
explain why they did something.
As for the institutions of marriage
preceding our nation, I agree, they did. They also preceded the Book
of Genesis she later quotes, but a lot of those Hebrews in that book
had a lot more than one wife. So, specifically, who's traditions
should we be following? We have many choices:
Arranged polygynous (one man &
more than one wife) marriages, with the women having no choice.
Arranged monogamous (two people
only) marriages, with the women having no choice.
Arranged monogamous or polygynous
marriages, with neither the men or women having a choice.
Non-arranged monogamous,
polygynous, polyandrous (one woman, 2+ men) or polyamorous (2+ men,
2+ women) marriages.
Serial monogamy (divorce and
remarry another person), which anthropologists consider a form of
polygamy (any non-monogamous marriage). Very traditional in the U.S.
Bigamy (marry more than one
partner illegally).
Monogamous marriage while having
sex with others. Also traditional in the U.S.
Marriages made for political
reasons, with the men and/or women having a choice or not.
Marriage for money.
Marriage for security.
Marriage for sex.
Marriage because of peer pressure
and/or societal pressure.
Marriage for love.
I'm sure some people can think of even
more.
All, or most, of these have been
practiced in the U.S. at some time in our history. Polygyny is still
practiced, even though it is illegal and not as common as it once
was. Monogamy and Serial Monogamy are still legal in the U.S.
So pick a tradition. Just about any
marriage arrangement is traditional.
Let's not forget about sex,
co-habitation and other living arrangements outside of marriage.
Those are also traditional, they've been around as long as people
have (maybe longer).
Okay, enough about traditional
marriage, let's move on to Ms. Parker's reference for the definition
of marriage, the Book of Genesis (a non-authoritative source).
The part she quoted does say that God
made woman from Adam's rib.
However, it was Adam, not God that she
quotes after that:
23 And
Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto
his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And
they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
So, since it was Adam that said it, how
much bearing does it actually have on reality? Note that this was
before Adam ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, so he was
pretty ignorant when he said that. Nowhere in that quote does it
actually define marriage, nor does it limit marriage to only one
definition.
I wonder what she thinks about public
nudity since that was mentioned in the same passage.
Using the bible as a reference is a
doubtful way to get your point across, anyway, since most people
don't take the bible literally, as is proven by Ms. Parker's
interpretation of the passages she used as a reference. Did she leave
out the part “And Adam said,” on purpose? Put a little spin on
something that is so easily checked? Like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk?
Not that bad, they just bold-faced lie.
And a lot of people take the bible as
good fiction.
“The degradation of marriage is but
the last chapter.”
Really? What degradation of marriage? I
ask. Marriage is no more degraded than it ever has been.
“Kennedy is so absorbed in creating
reality that he appears oblivious that any reality might exist
outside his own imagination.”
I contend that it is Ms. Parker that is
creating her own reality.
“In 1960, 9% of American adults over 25 had never married. Today it
is 20%.”
“In 1960, about 5% of our babies were born to unwed mothers. Now it
is 41%.”
Cause and effect? She is trying to establish the “degradation of
marriage” by using facts without showing the cause and effects.
More spin.
How about... another opinion with cause and effects.
“In 1960, 9% of American adults over 25 had never married.”
What percentage married only because their peers and society demanded
it?
“Today it is 20%.”
More people resisting societal and peer pressure thereby changing
society's expectations and norms?
“In 1960 about 5% of our babies were born to unwed mothers.”
What percentage got married only because they were pregnant? How many
men were forced to marry because they got a woman pregnant?
“Now it is 41%.”
Indications that more men and women are resisting societal and peer
pressure thereby changing society's expectations and norms?
See how that was done? I quoted the same facts, as presented by Ms.
Parker, and came to exactly the opposite conclusions. Personally, I
think mine are much closer to reality.
Next point of contention.
“The marriage redefinition movement has been driven by two
motivations: 1) de-legitimization of religion, and 2) expansion of
the welfare state.”
What evidence does she provide for either of these motivations that
she ascribes to a movement that she provides no evidence it even
exists? None. What does the welfare state have to do with marriage?
She explains that opinion with no corroborating facts next.
“It is no accident that as marriage has broken down, dependence on
government has exploded. The percentage of our national budget
consisting of transfer payments to individuals has expanded from less
than 30% in 1960 to around 70% today.”
What is the correlation of that statement to anything? The alleged
breakdown of marriage has caused the federal government to give more
money to people, or give more people money? Again I ask, cause and
effect? Is it possible that the increase in population and the
worsening economy just might affect this a tiny, little bit? Much
more than anything to do with marriage, anyway.
The she goes on to make statements about God-given truths, arbitrary
political power, a vacuum of degraded truths and a degraded
Constitution. God-given truths? When did God give them? Don't use the
bible as reference, it is not authoritative. Arbitrary political
power? Hasn't it always been? That's why we try to keep some control
on the politicians. A vacuum of degraded truths? She would prefer a
proliferation of degraded truths? A degraded Constitution? She has a
valid point there, but it is caused by power hungry politicians and
big business not by anything to do with marriage, and when wasn't it?
I know Star Parker's article was on the Comment page and is therefore
opinion, but even opinion should be related to reality in some way. Cherry-picking partial facts without even trying to show how they relate to
your statements is simply arrogant and lazy.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
This is the first knot I tied when I decided to start doing knotwork.
Some more great sources are:
